OPINION AND EDITORIAL
OF ATTACK DOGS, EGOS, FOOD FIGHTS AND RED LIGHTS
August 31, 2011
It appears there will be no opposing statement in the voter’s pamphlet for Proposition 3, the one sponsored by the city of Monroe that asks voters a rather goofy question about what they want to do in 2013 with the devil cameras from hell, not what they want to do with them now.
Monroe Mayor Robert Zimmerman. Did he send in an "attack dog" to deep six a voter pamphlet statement that would cast him in a bad light? SkyValleyChronicle.com photo. CLICK TO ENLARGE
That opposing statement has been killed evidently. Went down in the boiling acid of bad blood and fiery-tongued arrows of insults.
And both parties in the public dispute blame each other for the sabotage.
So what’s new?
Observing two arguably halfway dysfunctional conservatives in this thing try to scratch each other’s eyes out in public, is it any wonder that Democrats and Republicans in The Beltway are fully dysfunctional and can’t agree on what day it is let alone how to manage the country?
The opposing statement to Prop 3 has blown up like a roadside IED between the parties that were supposed to be adult enough, acting as a committee, to write it.
And to hear Tim Eyman’s version: “Monroe's pro-camera Mayor and pro-camera City Council got exactly what they wanted…I did everything in my power to fight back against the stacked deck that (they) orchestrated here, battling until the end for a meaningful statement appearing in the voters pamphlet. But since it included 2 sentences that highlighted their obstruction, Monroe's Mayor and City Council ultimately decided it was better to have nothing appear, censoring the voters pamphlet with the assistance of their chief defender and appointed apologist Chad Minnick.”
In Eyman’s version Minnick is the political attack dog and long time supporter/pal of Zimmermann that Zimmerman sicked on the case to purposely make the committee dysfunctional (and make sure Minnick took the public heat so he, Zimmerman, would not have to) so there never would be an opposing statement in the voter pamphlet at all.
If that was the strategy, then by God it was a pretty good one. Seems to have worked as advertised. Chalk one up for Zimmy boy.
Zimmerman got to hang in the shadows and stay squeaky clean on the deal (the Teflon mayor?) while sticking a rusty jailhouse shiv a few inches into the soft under belly of his arch nemesis -- that fun loving, always likeable, wild and crazy guy Tim Eyman. (That likeable, fun loving line was an attempt at humor).
NO, NO, NO IT WAS EYMAN THAT BLEW IT UP!
To hear former city councilman Chad Minnick tell it, that wasn’t that way it was at all. It was Eyman who was/is the scoundrel in the woodpile. That Eyman guy.
Eyman blew the whole thing out of the water. And besides that, he says Eyman lies, lies, lies!
Hell Eyman lies more than that schmuck who convinced Bush and Rummy there were WMD’s under Sadam’s bed in Baghdad and the fuse was lit.
“Twelve words from Tim Eyman kept anti-Prop 3 statement out of (the) voter guide,” said Minnick in a statement.
“Yesterday Tim Eyman blocked a statement opposing Monroe’s Proposition 3, the pro-automatic ticketing camera measure, from appearing in the voter guide for the November election…(he) prevented voters from reading a NO on Prop 3 statement in their voter guide because I would not agree to twelve words he insisted on,” said Minnick.
“He was appointed to help two of us Monroe residents write a statement opposing Prop 3, but sabotaged the process instead.”
Minnick refused to sign a stronger statement that Eyman wanted (one that took a leather strap to the backsides of Zimmy boy and the others). “It is not accurate to say that the City violated the law…I will not have my name associated with dishonest statements,” said Minnick.
Minnick said he signed up to serve on the committee to write a statement opposing Proposition 3, not to get in the middle of Eyman’s battle with the City Council.
In the same release Minnick said that Sunday, the third committee member Veronica Rood of Monroe wrote an email to the Auditor that she did not agree with Eyman’s version.
“His tactics are bullying tactics,” wrote Rood. “I resent them because they are not honest.”
Eyman for his part claims Rood hates him for reasons having to do with the Seeds of Liberty group initially talking about launching an Initiative in Monroe about the cameras.
And blah, blah, blah, blah.
LIKE TWO 12-YEAR OLDS HAVING A FOOD FIGHT
Watching the insults, emails and statements between Minnick and Eyman fly back and forth is like watching two 12-year olds have a food fight on Facebook.
Watching these two conservatives go at each other’s throats is - as Arnold would say between noon time love trysts with the housekeeper - “Like watching a couple of little girly-men having a cat fight on da school grounds.”
It is almost surreal. It is certainly pathetic and perhaps a textbook example of what is deeply wrong in the land of the free.
On the plus side though, this thing is getting to be more fun than watching old sitcoms late at night while drinking cheep beer. Or shooting rats in a city dump at 1:00 am on a clear night with .22 rifles.
But seriously, aren't conservatives smart enough to know they’re supposed to be going for the jugulars of liberals and progressives, not each other?
Aren’t they smart enough to know they’re supposed to hide in the deep bush together (like pals) and jump out every now and then and throttle the skinny little liberal neck of Dennis Kucinich whenever he walks by?
You know, make that little socialist scum punk do the funky chicken but good every now and then.
DON’T THEY BOTH SEE A CORE CONSERVATIVE ISSUE?
Don’t either one of these guys get it that the red light camera issue is, if you think clearly about it for two seconds, a core conservative issue they should both be fighting against and both be on the same page about?
After all the cameras strike to the heart of the idea of unwarranted and unnecessary government intrusion into people’s lives (big brother is watching you every minute), government having an allegiance not to local residents but to an out of state corporation that has a vested interest in making sure locals get slapped with big money tickets, as well as the prospect of LOTS of new money going into government coffers to keep that ol’ debil gov’t alive and growing and hiring all those new public employees they supposedly despise.
Those are all things most sane, thinking conservatives, and actually many progressives and independents can agree on about being against.
Sane being a key word.
And all that doesn't even touch on the issue of due process of law with these cameras or why in God’s name slap somebody in a community you are supposed to care about with a $124 traffic ticket in the depths of the still Great Recession with 9% unemployment (actually more like 14% on the street and 20% in the minority community) instead of a $25 ticket?
On that reason alone Zimmerman and his band of sycophant pals on the council who favor these liberty-attacking, liberty-sucking cameras should be voted out of office.
THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD BUST EVERY RED LIGHT CAMERA
You think any of the founding fathers of this nation would be behind this kind of government control and intrusion from afar?
You think Tommie Jefferson or Bennie Franklin would go for being spied on with a camera 24/7? A camera that can dock them a day’s wages for being a split second too late in getting through an intersection?
In your dreams Slick.
Do you suppose it dawned on any of the geniuses at city hall what a $124 ticket would mean to a single mom with two kids who makes little money to begin with and just had her hours cut back at the local grocery store?
(Single moms, now you know who’s out to get you).
Or how about a senior citizen on a seriously strapped fixed income?’
(Seniors, now you know who’s out to get you).
How about a mom and a dad with three kids at home who both lost their jobs in the last year?
(Moms and dads, now you know who is not family friendly and who is out to get you).
Allowing a $124 ticket to be laid on locals in this economy with this unemployment level and in a nation where real wages have stagnated since the 1970’s – and where millions of family wage jobs have been sent overseas - borders on the criminal.
All of those at city hall in favor of that kind of assault against citizens who are struggling to make it through the Great Recession in one piece should be defeated at the polls the next time they come up for election.
Defeated by a landslide vote.
IS THERE MORE TO ALL THIS THAN MEETS THE EYE?
There are some in the community – we hear from them from time to time - who feel there are darker, potentially more serious undertones to what has been happening in and to the Monroe community than this fracas with the red light ticket cameras.
They view the camera issue – as well as the Walmart issue where this mayor and council sunk down into the shadows and gave a sweetheart deal (gave away the farm actually) while selling out the community in the back room to Sabey & Walmart – as symptomatic of a deeper, more serious problem at city hall.
The land deal alone with Sabey smells so bad that no one who had anything to do with will talk to us about it now. We don’t blame them though. The thing reeks like rotted flesh. Anyone in their right mind who was involved with it would now want to disown it.
The fact is normal, intelligent people who wish to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, any hint of impropriety or cronyism avoid taking public policy actions that suggest such things.
The appointment by Mayor Zimmerman of a crony, a long time supporter, back-slapping back room political player and, as Eyman would put it, an “attack dog” like the perpetually snarling, always-threatening-someone-with-something Chad Minnick – who curiously has some interesting ethics issues in his own background the past couple of years – to a committee to write an opposing argument to a city sponsored measure that is in Zimmerman’s interest and the city's interest, is as openly mocking to the public and as disingenuous as one politician can get.
It is a frontal slap in the face to voters and not the first one this mayor and council has engaged in.
Any stumble bum with a few brain cells left after going 0-for-42 in the ring could have figured out beforehand that two loud-mouthed, big-ego guys like Eyman and Minnick - and particularly a guy like Minnick with his predisposition to reflexively threaten anything that moves including nuns and cute little animals - would mix like hot oil and water and blow up in record time.
Appointing Minnick was a clear set up. A telegraphed punch if ever one existed.
And the reason Zimmerman & Gang do such things brazenly, fearing no reprisals that carry consequences is because they are 100% sure they have a lock on keeping city hall under their control and operating it as their personal plaything.
More correctly, their own personal ideological plaything. So personal they would attack and take down another conservative who gets in their way.
WOE TO THOSE WHO GET IN THE WAY OF THE LOCAL TALIBAN
And woe to anyone who gets in their way who does not share their particular ideology.
If you fall for the angle that Minnick was not placed on that committee to either water down the statement against Proposition 3 or get in Eyman’s face to the point where the whole process blew up and no statement opposing the measure would be forthcoming, then you’ll want to buy sight unseen some vacation land in Arizona we have for sale for ten bucks an acre.
If that were indeed the case - that Minnick was placed there by Zimmerman as the powder charge to make sure there was an explosion - what would be Minnick's motivation to do it? He already said he couldn’t care less about the red light camera issue.
Would the pay off be just the pleasure of serving his political pals who need an attack dog to run point and draw fire?
Or is there some other thing that Minnick might want as payback? Something he might have coveted for a long time? Something more tangible than ideology. Something very...family oriented.
There are those who say the answer to that question is yes and that the answer can be found in old news clippings from the past few years.